Lee v. Wilson County Jail-Lebanon et al

Filing 82

MEMORANDUM and ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. No. 79) is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 81) is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling his moti on in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal (Doc. No. 80), but has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal or the $505 filing fee. Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file either (1) an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal or (2) the full $505 filing fee. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 6/27/2016. (xc:Pro se party, Order by certified mail and Order and IFP by regular mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
EARL JEROME LEE, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILSON COUNTY JAIL—
LEBANON, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:15-cv-00007
JUDGE CRENSHAW

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Doc. No. 79.) “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion . . .
only if there is: (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change
in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.” Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol.
Schs., 469 F.3d 479, 496 (6th Cir. 2006). Construing Plaintiff’s motion liberally, Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), Plaintiff appears to argue that the Court committed a clear error
of law and there is a need to prevent manifest injustice. As to the clear error of law, Plaintiff makes
the same claims that he made in his original response to Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, as well as his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. These
arguments are denied for the reasons contained in the Report and Recommendation. As to
preventing manifest injustice, Plaintiff argues that the Court should have appointed him counsel
so that he could defend his claims. Plaintiff is not entitled to counsel in his civil case, and this is
not an exceptional circumstance that required appointment of counsel. Lavado v. Keohane, 992
F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1993). Therefore, the Court finds that there is no need to prevent manifest
injustice.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. No. 79)
is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 81) is DENIED without prejudice to
Plaintiff refiling his motion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal (Doc. No. 80), but has not filed an application to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal or the $505 filing fee. Within twenty-one days of the date of
this order, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file either (1) an application to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal or (2) the full $505 filing fee. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff an application to
proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2